Virtual Creative Artists LLC v. Baron App Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtual Creative Artists, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Baron App, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08394, N.D. Ill., 09/13/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant’s established place of business within the Northern District of Illinois and alleged acts of infringement occurring in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Cameo online platform, which allows users to purchase personalized videos from celebrities, infringes two patents related to a system and method for an electronic multi-media exchange based on user submissions.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns online platforms for crowdsourcing, curating, and distributing user-generated multimedia content, a central component of the modern digital creator and influencer economy.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that arguments similar to those presented in its infringement contentions overcame patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 during the prosecution of both patents-in-suit. The asserted patents share an identical specification and claim a priority date of May 1999.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 - "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same"

• Issued: November 22, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section, written from the perspective of the late 1990s, identifies the logistical challenge for media companies in managing and sorting a high volume of unsolicited artistic submissions (e.g., scripts, songs) and the lack of a structured electronic system for remote content creators to collaborate and share their work (’480 Patent, col. 2:41-56; Compl. ¶11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-based system composed of four interconnected subsystems: a submissions subsystem to receive content, a creator subsystem to filter and select submissions, a release subsystem to make the developed content available, and a voting subsystem for audience rating (’480 Patent, Claim 1). This architecture provides a networked "multi-media exchange" to manage the lifecycle of user-submitted content, from submission and selection to creation and audience review (’480 Patent, Abstract, FIG. 2).
• Technical Importance: The patent describes a structured, server-based framework for crowdsourcing and managing user-generated media content before the widespread emergence of modern social media and creator platforms (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
• Claim 1 of the ’480 Patent recites a computer-based system with four essential elements:
  • An "electronic media submissions server subsystem" with an interface to receive and store electronic media submissions, along with data identifying the submitter and the content.
  • An "electronic multimedia creator server subsystem" configured to select and retrieve submissions using a filter based on user attributes to develop multimedia content, while maintaining the submitter's identification.
  • An "electronic release subsystem" configured to make the developed multimedia content available for viewing on user devices.
  • An "electronic voting subsystem" configured to enable users to vote for or rate the available multimedia content or submissions.

---

U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 - "Revenue-Generating Electronic Multi-Media Exchange and Process of Operating Same"

• Issued: October 25, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’665 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’480 Patent and thus addresses the same problem of creating a structured electronic exchange for user-submitted media content (’665 Patent, col. 2:41-56; Compl. ¶36).
• The Patented Solution: In contrast to the system claims of the ’480 Patent, the ’665 Patent claims a method performed by a computer system. The claimed method comprises the steps of electronically retrieving submissions using a filter based on user attributes, generating a new multimedia file from those submissions while maintaining submitter identification, transmitting that file to webservers for viewing, and providing a graphical user interface for users to vote or rate the content (’665 Patent, Claim 1, FIG. 5D).
• Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a computer-implemented process for managing and transforming user-submitted content into distributable media, representing an early approach to the technologies that now underpin the creator economy (Compl. ¶37).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
• Claim 1 of the ’665 Patent recites an electronic method with four essential steps:
  • "Electronically retrieving" a plurality of electronic media submissions from a database using a filter based on user attributes.
  • "Electronically generating" a multimedia file from the retrieved submissions, wherein submitter identification is maintained.
  • "Electronically transmitting" the multimedia file to publicly accessible webservers for viewing on user devices.
  • "Providing" a web-based graphical user interface enabling a user to vote or rate the content.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Cameo" online platform and associated services, accessible via its website (www.cameo.com) and mobile applications (Compl. ¶22, ¶44).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Cameo platform enables public figures and celebrities ("user-celebrities") to create profiles and offer personalized video messages to consumers for a fee (Compl. ¶22, ¶45). Users submit requests for these videos, and celebrities upload the resulting content to the platform for delivery (Compl. ¶23).
• The platform organizes celebrity profiles into categories (e.g., "Actors," "Athletes," "Musicians"), which the complaint alleges function as a filter based on user attributes (Compl. ¶26). The complaint also alleges that Defendant employs "separate server subsystems for all its meaningfully different functions" within its cloud-based infrastructure (Compl. ¶22). One visual in the complaint shows a screenshot from the Cameo website displaying a grid of celebrity profiles organized by categories (Compl. p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,501,480 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "subsystem", as used in the patent, requires distinct hardware or software modules consistent with late-1990s architecture, or if it can be construed to cover logical groupings of functions within a modern, integrated cloud-based microservices architecture.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether displaying existing, self-contained database records (i.e., individual celebrity profiles) in response to a category filter meets the claim limitation of using a filter "to develop multimedia content." A dispute could arise over whether this constitutes the creation of new content or is merely a standard database query-and-display function.

---

U.S. Patent No. 9,477,665 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A key point of contention may be the interpretation of "generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions." The dispute will likely center on whether dynamically rendering a webpage from a single database record constitutes "generating a file" from a "plurality of... submissions" in the manner contemplated by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: It may be contested whether filtering a directory of celebrities by category is functionally equivalent to the patent’s description of selecting and combining submissions to create a new piece of media, such as a television program.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "subsystem" (’480 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The structure of claim 1 of the ’480 Patent is defined by four distinct, operatively coupled "subsystems." The construction of this term is critical to determining whether a modern, distributed cloud architecture infringes a claim rooted in a more modular, server-centric paradigm. Practitioners may focus on this term because the alleged infringement maps functions of an integrated service onto the patent's discrete system components.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims primarily define the subsystems by their function (e.g., "configured to receive," "configured to select"). This functional language, largely untethered to specific hardware, may support a broader construction where any logical grouping of code performing the claimed function qualifies as a "subsystem."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s figures depict distinct architectural blocks for different processors and databases (e.g., FIG. 2 shows separate boxes for "Submitter/Member Database", "Creator Database", and "Points/Voting Database"). This could support an interpretation requiring some degree of structural or architectural separation between the subsystems.

• The Term: "develop multimedia content" (’480 Patent, Claim 1) / "generating a multimedia file from the retrieved electronic media submissions" (’665 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: These terms are the core of the asserted inventive concept. The infringement theory depends on construing these terms to cover the display of a filtered list of existing celebrity profiles. The case may turn on whether these terms require the creation of a new, composite work from multiple underlying submissions or if they can read on the routine display of database information.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition for these phrases, which could permit a broader reading where any server-side assembly of data for presentation to a user is considered "generating a file" or "developing content."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses a process where "submission material is selected... and adapted into content" (’480 Patent, FIG. 5B, step 522) and the resulting "content is developed based, in whole or part, upon the selected one or more submissions" (’480 Patent, col. 4:36-39). This language suggests a transformative process of creating a new derivative work, rather than simply displaying an existing, self-contained record.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case will likely present several key questions for the court, blending claim construction with the challenge of applying older patent language to modern web technologies.

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "subsystem", described in the context of a 1999-era client-server architecture with discrete functional modules, be construed to read on the logical functions of a modern, integrated, and distributed cloud-based platform?
• A central evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does Cameo’s function of filtering a directory of celebrity profiles and displaying them to a user constitute the claimed acts of "developing multimedia content" and "generating a multimedia file from... submissions," or do these claim terms require a more transformative act of creating a new, composite media work from multiple distinct user contributions?
• Finally, a recurring legal question will be patent eligibility: Although the complaint notes the patents survived § 101 scrutiny during prosecution, the court will likely be asked to re-evaluate whether the claims, as asserted against the accused platform, are directed to more than the abstract idea of managing and displaying creative content using generic computer functions.